January 4, 1893.] 



Garden and Forest. 



than we need, and yet there are few which really satisfy 

 our expectations. This failure has little relation to tlie mere 

 date of introduction of the varieties, that is, to their novelty, 

 but to the broader and more important facts that very few 

 varieties tend to surpass others which have come into exist- 

 ence earlier, and that variations run largely in similar direc- 

 tions, giving us many essential duplications in leading charac- 

 ters. The reason, I think, that so many comparatively unim- 

 portant varieties are disseminated, is because the varieties mis- 

 lead us, and in several ways : 



(i) New varieties are often not fixed or permanent in their 

 characteristics, or do not show their full attributes at once. 



New Tomatoes illustrate this fact forcibly. A year ago a 

 chance Tomato-plant appeared in one of the benches of our 

 forcing-liouses. It proved to be the best forcing or winter 

 Tomato which I had ever seen, and of a new type. I was proud 

 of it, and I named it. Seedlings and cuttings were raised from 

 it and set in the field, but none of the offspring seemed to pre- 

 sent any decided merits. Many of them were entirely unlike 

 the parent, even in the color of the fruit. Yet this plant stood 

 in an isolated position where the seeds could not have been 

 crossed.^ In fact, the plant cuttings varied much more widely 

 from the original than did the seedlings. In 1889 and 1890 I 

 sent out a new Tomato under the name of Ignotum. By care- 

 ful selection we have kept this variety very close to its origi- 

 nal characters ; yet, from seeds of Ignotum, from fifteen 

 seedsmen, last year, eight lots failed to produce a single typical 

 Ignotum-plant. Varieties of Tomatoes are notably unstable, 

 so much so that a variety rarely persists in its original charac- 

 ters for more than ten years, unless extra care is exercised to 

 keep it true. This instability is true to a greater or less extent 

 of all varieties which are propagated by means of seeds. But 

 it is sometimes true of fruits as well which are propagated by 

 buds or division of the plant. A young Cherry-tree stood in 

 an English garden. The fruit was so indifferent that the owner 

 was about to destroy the tree, but his little daughter had be- 

 come attached to the tree and pleaded for its life. The tree 

 was left, and the fruit began to improve. The mature tree 

 gave an excellent fruit, which is now known as the Black 

 Eagle. All fruit-growers or nurserymen of wide experience 

 know that the first fruit of a plant is not to be accepted as a 

 reliable indication of the permanent character of the plant. 

 Sometimes the first fruit is better than the later fruit, and 

 sometimes poorer, but I think that it is oftenest better. The first 

 may be unusually profuse, or the fruit may be unusually large 

 and fair, and if the originator or introducer draws his descrip- 

 tion from it, he is very likely to be disappointed in after years. 

 On the other hand, some fruits show their full merits only after 

 years of fruiting, like the Josephine de Malines and other 

 winter Pears. In these cases, an impatient man might destroy 

 a meritorious variety. This danger of introducing varieties 

 which are not fully fixed, or whose habits are not fully known, 

 can be avoided by giving the novelties a longer trial before 

 they are introduced. Of course, the introducer feels that he 

 cannot afford to wait a few or several years before he places 

 a variety upon the market. He is afraid that others may in- 

 troduce a similar variety, or he is impatient for the gain and 

 notoriety which an introduction may bring. It is certain, how- 

 ever, that the novelty which has the longest record behind it 

 is likely to win the greatest favor, and, therefore, to bring the 

 greatest gain ; and certainly one's reputation gains more from 

 deliberate than from precipitate action. ■ 



(2) New varieties are often not adapted to a wide range of 

 conditions. 



However well a variety may thrive in its original place, 

 this is no evidence tliat it will thrive in other places. Every 

 horticultural convention affords new evidence that few varie- 

 ties are cosmopolitan. A few days ago I heard a spirited dis- 

 cussion upon the merits of the Cumberland Strawberry, and 

 almost every conceivable opinion was expressed concerning 

 it. Some thought it to be among the most meritorious of 

 Strawberries, and others had discarded it. Essentially this 

 same discussion could be applied to most varieties of fruits. 

 It does not follow that a variety is necessarily best adapted to 

 the place or conditions in which it originates, but it is true 

 that it stands little chance of being noticed and disseminated 

 unless it is adapted to its birthplace. I am often tempted to 

 construct a detail map of the distribution of some prominent 

 variety of fruit. We should find the distribution to be pecu- 

 liar, to be dense here and there, sparse in contiguous areas, 

 and to skip entirely an irregular space now and then. Herein 

 Illinois and westward, even the comparatively cosmopolitan 

 Baldwin Apple is supplanted by the Ben Davis. It is too much 

 to expect anyone variety to thrive equally in all parts of a sin- 

 gle state, not to speak of all parts of North America. Yet we 



are likely to regard an adverse report upon any novelty as a 

 necessary condemnation of it, while the report may only de- 

 fine the limits and merits of the variety and thereby prove to 

 be a decided advantage by tending to restrict the variety to its 

 true place and sphere. I mean, in other words, that the suc- 

 cess of a variety is not determined by the number of favorable 

 reports upon it, but rather by its perfect adaptation to certain 

 conditions and requirements. A variety is not a failure if, in 

 one place alone, it is better than all other competing varieties. 

 A very important question now arises : Shall the originator 

 endeavor to determine the conditions to which his variety is 

 adapted before he introduces it? Adaptations often differ 

 very widely between very small contiguousareas, and a variety 

 may not be adapted to all the arable soils and all the expos- 

 ures of a single farm. To discover, therefore, the full range 

 of adaptability of a variety is to introduce it. The originator 

 cannot discover these facts and still hold the stock in his own 

 hands. The experiment stations can help him somewhat, but 

 there are only about fifty of them in all North America. We 

 cannot expect the originator or introducer, therefore, to know 

 all the conditions under which a variety will succeed or fail. 

 But we can expect, however, that he shall tell us all that he 

 does know about it. He should tell us the soil upon which he 

 finds it to succeed, the exposure and the treatment which it 

 enjoys. It is his duty, also, to give the adverse as well as 

 favorable reports, and the conditions under which they arose. 



(3) Varieties bear a variable and uncertain relationship to 

 disease and insect attacks. 



We know that in every species of plant, which is ordi- 

 narily variable and which has been cultivated for a century or 

 more, there are some varieties which are more susceptible 

 than others to disease and insect injury, and that in some 

 years these varieties are more injured than in others. Of a 

 new variety, its relationship to these attacks has not yet been 

 learned, and whether it is to be subject to them or to have 

 immunity from them. Growing in limited quantity in a small 

 space, it may escape attack for several, or even many, years ; 

 but as the area of its cultivation enlarges, the enemies find it, 

 and it may turn out to be as liable to injury as any of the 

 older varieties, and, like them, it may fail for this reason. In 

 other words, absence of injury to a new variety may not 

 indicate immunity from disease, but simply escape from it. 



I am inclined to believe, also, that a variety may change in 

 its relationship to disease, and possibly to insect attack. May 

 it not be true that many of the so-called blight-proof Pears 

 really have measurable immunity, and that after a time they 

 become susceptible to attack ? It is true, no doubt, that some 

 varieties of Pears are freer from attack than others ; that is, the 

 species, the Pear, varies within itself in this particular. Now, 

 the variety differs from the species in degree only, not in 

 kind ; it is variable within itself, and there is no philosophical 

 reason why it may not acquire new habits. More than this, 

 the behavior of many varieties of various plants in reference to 

 disease appears to indicate some such change in character. 

 How many are the old-seedling Pear-trees standing near af- 

 fected ones, which rarely or never blight, but whose offspring 

 blight as badly as other kinds ! The same variety of plruit 

 often behaves differently in different parts of the country in 

 reference to the same disease. The difference in amenability 

 to disease in different varieties of the same species is ad- 

 mirably showii in the Tomato. The little-improved sorts, like 

 the Cherry and Plum Tomatoes, are not attacked by fruit-rot, 

 but the large modern varieties are seriously affected. In other 

 words, if we had no large tomatoes we should probably have 

 no such disease as Tomato fruit-rot. Moreover, the rot in any 

 variety appears to depend considerably upon the conditions 

 under which the variety isgrown. It is also known that these 

 conditions exert a great influence upon the habit and other 

 characters of the variety. The influences of these conditions 

 or environments upon both amenability to disease and upon 

 variation or modification in the variety itself, must, therefore, 

 proceed somewhat in common. It is conceivable, also, if 

 varieties or individual plants become modified with age in 

 reference to productiveness and qualities of fruit without 

 showing other external modifications, as we have already seen, 

 that they can become similarly modified in reference to their 

 attitude toward diseases. 



(4) The standard of merit is constantly rising, and varieties 

 which would have been acceptable at one time may no longer 

 find favor. 



Every variety which supplants other varieties, by that much 

 raises the standard of forthcoming varieties. A grape must 

 now be better than the Concord if it is worth introiluction. 

 Good varieties are not worth introducing; they must be su- 

 perior if they are to have permanent v^alue. Yet this fact ap- 



